Has there been a discussion here

[gog8tors]

You don't sound snarky and I hear what you are saying.

 

I know I haven't spent as much time reading up on this stuff as I should have. Been busier than usual but I have to say the times I have started to read some of the political stuff on here there tends to be a lot of what appears to be rumor and personal, excuse the term, crap when I just want the basic facts.

 

Just tell me what you (the candidate) believes and wants to do and why I should vote for you (or your candidate) and not what an awful person the other candidate is and why I shouldn't vote for him/her. Does that make sense?

 

Please come and play. Yes you do have to go to page two most of the time to get past some one's whining. Unfortunately sometimes the discussions do disintegrate into personal attacks, that's when I usually leave the topic. Most of the time they start out with the information you need and can be quite civil, so it is worth it to look into this forum.

[mei lan]

Double Tapped, sorry.

 

To the above post, we already passed the Super Speeder law that was supposed to take care of this. Now, they want more money, because the speeders slowed down.

 

Again, the Law of Unintended Consequences (because they're too stupid to look ahead).

[Cathyhelms]

Here's something I find funny...

 

Some of you are willing to vote on what Clark Howard has told you about the proposed amendment.

 

Now, along comes Pubby with a post and now you've changed how you are planning on voting.

 

No disrespect to Pubby or Clark Howard, but really, why don't you people decide for yourself

how you're going to vote and stop relying on other people to interpret the amendment for you?

 

READ the amendment. Read it thoroughly. Read it again.

 

Voting is a seriously responsibility and too many people vote on what someone else tells them

to believe or what someone else thinks the poll question is asking.

 

Go to the website. Download the PDF with of the amendments and READ them.

They are not simply questions, like you see on the ballot.

They are full explanations of what the amendment is about and what it encompasses.

 

Stop listening to what OTHER people are telling you... do the research yourself and decide for yourself

how you are going to vote.

 

When will you be running for office??? We could sure use someone like you here in Paulding County.

[Wineguy]

I will add my reply since apparently i live on an island in paulding county where i am the only person that thinks as I do. I voted yesterday and voted

 

1) No - As i agree it is too hard to get a job as it is right now and trade secrets will make their way out one way or another.

 

2) Absolutely Yes - Vote no and be happy until it is you or your children that happen to die because there wasn't adequate care close enough. I know too many emergency room nurses that argue this all the time. We have one of the lowest number of Trauma units compared to our population in the Country. If 10 dollars is too high to save a life then we should cancel our health insurance as well and just "Risk it"

 

3) Yep - This doesnt allow for spending of money that isnt there, it allows for the approval of projects PENDING funding. If funding falls short the project is canceled. If stuff like this isnt passed our roadways and transportation system will look as bad as Alabama and Mississippi in the blink of an eye.

 

4) Yep - Please see above

 

5) Sure Why not, doesnt affect us too much anyway.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Wineguy

[gog8tors]

Yes, you DO sound a bit snarky. But that's OK.

 

I obviously have read the proposed amendments and have given my vote consideration. I think most others have, too. But a discussion of the issues involved, OUTSIDE of the PF (where you acknowledge many prefer not to tread, and with good reason), even just days before the vote, is much better than no discussion at all, wouldn't you agree?

 

Actually a lot of the threads on this started out in the cafe' and were quickly moved to the PF.

 

I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. Beacause, a lot of folks will vote in the local elections and will not understand or know what they are voting on. I also am wary of anything that is being touted on the TV 2 weeks before it is to be voted on. Admendment 2 comes to mind. If it is really that important why have they just started to run commercials about it?

[NewsJunky]

Actually a lot of the threads on this started out in the cafe' and were quickly moved to the PF.

 

I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. Beacause, a lot of folks will vote in the local elections and will not understand or know what they are voting on. I also am wary of anything that is being touted on the TV 2 weeks before it is to be voted on. Admendment 2 comes to mind. If it is really that important why have they just started to run commercials about it?

Think I started this in the PF in September.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments They will be on the November Ballot Rate Topic: //

NewsJunky Posted 04 September 2010 - 04:19 PM

I have scanned them. I wondered if any of you guys have thoughts that you would like to share on them. Here is the link:

 

There is an opinion in that thread by Lots To Do that I found very informative.

[TabbyCat]

Think I started this in the PF in September.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments They will be on the November Ballot Rate Topic: //

NewsJunky Posted 04 September 2010 - 04:19 PM

I have scanned them. I wondered if any of you guys have thoughts that you would like to share on them. Here is the link:

 

There is an opinion in that thread by Lots To Do that I found very informative.

 

 

Thanks, and of course I will go and look.

 

I don't read here much anymore, and when I do, I usually just scan the first page or two. I am logged in to the PF, but usually, the personal attacks and name-calling turn me away before I can seriously read and consider any of the thoughtful responses. Those who engage in personal attacks might consider that--is it more important to share your viewpoint, or to discredit those who disagree with you?

 

Because there are lots of folks, some who previously read and posted in the PF, who avoid it now because of all the nastiness.

 

It's possible for us to disagree without calling those we disagree with brainless idiots.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Actually a lot of the threads on this started out in the cafe' and were quickly moved to the PF.

 

I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. Beacause, a lot of folks will vote in the local elections and will not understand or know what they are voting on. I also am wary of anything that is being touted on the TV 2 weeks before it is to be voted on. Admendment 2 comes to mind. If it is really that important why have they just started to run commercials about it?

 

So...do I understand that you believe that state-wide issues have no place in the cafe, but only "local" issues?

 

Because in my mind, GA issues are "local."

[lowrider]

Read my Siggy!

 

And please, vote NO on AMENDMENT ONE!!

 

I voted early and I voted NO on all amendments. Amendments are misworded for a reason, just to get your vote because no one can understand them.

 

I actually did a poll, HERE

[gog8tors]

Thanks, and of course I will go and look.

 

I don't read here much anymore, and when I do, I usually just scan the first page or two. I am logged in to the PF, but usually, the personal attacks and name-calling turn me away before I can seriously read and consider any of the thoughtful responses. Those who engage in personal attacks might consider that--is it more important to share your viewpoint, or to discredit those who disagree with you?

 

Because there are lots of folks, some who previously read and posted in the PF, who avoid it now because of all the nastiness.

 

It's possible for us to disagree without calling those we disagree with brainless idiots.

 

Just something to think about.

 

 

 

So...do I understand that you believe that state-wide issues have no place in the cafe, but only "local" issues?

 

Because in my mind, GA issues are "local."

 

No, where did you get that from????

 

Anytime the gooberment wants to pass a bill it is important. Yes, I thing Paulding Co, and state issues should stay in the cafe'. I also understand that there will be some butt heads that will come into or start topics and state things just to tick people off.

[TabbyCat]

No, where did you get that from????

 

Anytime the gooberment wants to pass a bill it is important. Yes, I thing Paulding Co, and state issues should stay in the cafe'. I also understand that there will be some butt heads that will come into or start topics and state things just to tick people off.

 

 

Uhhmmm...your post at 3:22 pm above?

 

"I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. "

 

I assure you, ma'am or sir, that I am no "butt head," and I had no intention of "tick[ing] people off" by starting this thread. I asked an honest question, and hoped for honest answers.

 

Do you distrust anyone who asks a question of a political nature, or have you singled me out for some odd reason?

 

 

I have no beef with you or anyone, really. I just wanted people's thoughts on the amendments.

 

Sorry if that offended your sensibilities in some way.

 

Really. Uhm. Yeah.

[Cabe]

Unless someone has a serious compelling reason why I should vote otherwise, I at NO on all amendments. IN PARTICULAR, #2 is getting a BIG FAT NO from me. (Don't even bother trying to sway me on that one.) I am so sick and tired of the emotional pleas on people's heartstrings with that one. When they launched the commercial with the mother whose son had drowned. I was DONE! That secured my NO. The life of a child should not be used for political gain.

 

Do we need more trauma centers? Yes, I'm reasonably convinced that we do. My current position is find another way to pay for it. Initially, I had planned to research who was paying for all of the signs and commercials to help frame my position. Then the commercial appeared and I decided no further research was necessary. They had pissed me off!

[gog8tors]

Uhhmmm...your post at 3:22 pm above?

 

"I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. "

 

I assure you, ma'am or sir, that I am no "butt head," and I had no intention of "tick[ing] people off" by starting this thread. I asked an honest question, and hoped for honest answers.

 

Do you distrust anyone who asks a question of a political nature, or have you singled me out for some odd reason?

 

 

I have no beef with you or anyone, really. I just wanted people's thoughts on the amendments.

 

Sorry if that offended your sensibilities in some way.

 

Really. Uhm. Yeah.

 

Then you REALLY have misunderstood both of my post. I consider state to be local, as it directly impacts all of us. As far as the buttheads, I refering to some others that like to come in and do nothing but insult and disagree no matter what. I was not refering to you. But, at least better late then never to ask about these things.

[NewsJunky]

Uhhmmm...your post at 3:22 pm above?

 

"I too think that threads about LOCAL issues should stay here. "

 

I assure you, ma'am or sir, that I am no "butt head," and I had no intention of "tick[ing] people off" by starting this thread. I asked an honest question, and hoped for honest answers.

 

Do you distrust anyone who asks a question of a political nature, or have you singled me out for some odd reason?

 

 

I have no beef with you or anyone, really. I just wanted people's thoughts on the amendments.

 

Sorry if that offended your sensibilities in some way.

 

Really. Uhm. Yeah.

 

You and gog8tors would like each other. I know that because I know both of you. I hope to see more of you in these discussions because I have missed your biting wit. Madea, when I saw that commercial my first thought was 'where were the adults'? A pool in the yard and a 3 year old who can't swim is a bad mix. It is easier to say there should be some other way to protect children other than adult supervision. I know that is probably not going to be a popular view.

[TabbyCat]

You and gog8tors would like each other. I know that because I know both of you. I hope to see more of you in these discussions because I have missed your biting wit. Madea, when I saw that commercial my first thought was 'where were the adults'? A pool in the yard and a 3 year old who can't swim is a bad mix. It is easier to say there should be some other way to protect children other than adult supervision. I know that is probably not going to be a popular view.

 

Thank you, NJ. I've missed folks here, too.

 

And I'm sure gog8tos and I would get along. In fact, I believe we have met before.

 

I appreciate all of the responses in this thread. I started it out of curiosity about what others were thinking about the proposed amendments, and the responses have been educational.

[feelip]

Unless someone has a serious compelling reason why I should vote otherwise, I at NO on all amendments. IN PARTICULAR, #2 is getting a BIG FAT NO from me. (Don't even bother trying to sway me on that one.) I am so sick and tired of the emotional pleas on people's heartstrings with that one. When they launched the commercial with the mother whose son had drowned. I was DONE! That secured my NO. The life of a child should not be used for political gain.

 

Do we need more trauma centers? Yes, I'm reasonably convinced that we do. My current position is find another way to pay for it. Initially, I had planned to research who was paying for all of the signs and commercials to help frame my position. Then the commercial appeared and I decided no further research was necessary. They had pissed me off!

 

 

Me too. They play the voters for a bunch of dumbasses (and they are probably correct in most cases).

 

So the taxpayers can build a private corporation a facility to make a profit. Are we going to get to share the profits? Hell no. Are we even going to get a discount if we have to use the facility? Nope.

 

The people responsible for putting these amendments on the ballot should be investigated.

 

Vote NO to all amendments!!!

[+North of the Border]

yes on #2 and 4 only for me

[Opal]

I just wondered if there has been any discussion here about the 5 proposed constitutional amendments we'll all be casting votes over next Tuesday?

 

I didn't do a search, but just a glimpse through the topic headings didn't seem to include a thread about the amendments.

 

I'm posting this in the cafe because I think it's a discussion we could all benefit from, but my feelings won't be hurt if it gets moved to the PF.

 

And forgive me if this has already been discussed. And point me to that thread, please.

 

Thanks.

[/quote

 

Thanks for asking this. I've been wondering the same thing. The way they are written on the ballot is always so confusing.

Edited October 31, 2010 by gertie

[The Sound Guy]

I guess we will have to cancel our votes, Sound Guy. That is what the process is about.

 

I actually thought that the contracts empowered, which limit the future payments to proven efficiency savings, demonstrated that government could be concerned with efficiency and could create a way to fund those savings from virtually thin air.

 

Just an update, I read the flyer that had Clark Howard on it (I understand that he announced on his show that he did NOT give permission for them to use his name in the flyer, but he does support the amendment) and got some more details.

 

It appears that it works like this:

 

Contractor makes a pitch to the State for an energy saving project.

 

Proposal states that the project will cost the state X millions, and save the state Y dollars per year in a particular type of energy usage for Z years.

 

State buys the project pays the contractor his costs and full profit on the job. If the expected savings is NOT met, then the business has to kick back the difference as their guarantee on the savings.

 

Sounds kinda good, but unless the savings is bonded, there is no guarantee that the company could afford to make the payment and could just go bankrupt like so many builders did around here. Then the state is out the contract money. Like the independent transmission company that rebuilt my transmission with a 50,000 mile guarantee and then was gone when it died six months later.

 

It's not quite as bad as I thought, but I'm still not sure I like it. Will there by competitive bids on the buildings? Will there be bonds? I don't know it sounds like one of those vague government programs like "Great health care" that we have to vote for to see what's in it.

 

May still vote no, but wanted to update what I said before.

 

SG

[feelip]

yes on #2 and 4 only for me

 

 

Why would anyone want to donate $10 to a private corporation to help pay for a trauma center? Why would any politician suggest that this was a good idea unless he were getting his pockets lined by one of the healthcare providers?

 

I can guarantee you that the profits will remain private. I think the expenses should stay private as well.